Date limite de soumission des propositions : 30 mars 2011.

English version

The time seems right, a century after the outbreak of the “Great Labour Unrest”, to revisit a strike wave that historians have rather neglected during the last two decades. The sheer size of that unprecedented unrest and its destabilising effects on British society hardly need emphasising: in 1911, about one million workers were involved in labour disputes; in 1912, 40 million days of work were “lost” through strikes; during the first six months of 1914, the number of strikes soared to reach almost one thousand; in less than four years, trade union membership increased from 2.5 to 4 million. The causes and the meaning of the upheaval have been repeatedly disputed, some historians favouring what might be a termed a “catastrophist” approach (e.g. George Dangerfield or Elie Halévy in the 1930s), while others offered a “relativist” reading (e.g. Jonathan Zeitlin in 1989). At a time when popular reactions to the worldwide crisis of capitalism are so difficult to predict, the organisers of the conference believe that much can still be learnt from the study of the 1911-1914 events.

Here are some suggestions as to the perspectives that may be adopted to cast a new light on the topic. The form taken by the workers’ agitation in London, Liverpool or Glasgow has been extensively mapped. But what about the struggles that occurred in smaller cities or towns, in places where people not so famous as James Sexton or Ben Tillett came forward? The male workers’ strikes have received substantial academic treatment. But the movement was not limited to the initiatives taken by seamen, dockers, railwaymen or miners. What part did their wives take in the fight? What role did women workers at large (factory girls, servants, teachers, shop assistants…) play in the Great Labour Unrest? Much has been written about the words and deeds of labour leaders and their organisations during the 1911-1914 period. But we still need to pay more attention to how businessmen and statesmen dealt with the proletarian rebellion. Another path worthy of exploration could be the relationships between labour activism and other social movements, notably the women’s revolt and the troubles in Ireland.

To rediscover the Great Labour Unrest, a questioning of the insular geographical frame in which it has long been confined could also prove fruitful. To what extent was it a “British” strike wave? Should the adjective not be understood in a broader sense than before, embracing not only Ireland, but also the British world in general? The imperial dimension of the phenomenon surely deserves to be analysed. After all, between 1911 and 1914, British Columbia was repeatedly under tension, there was a general strike in New Zealand (1913) and the labour disputes in South Africa almost turned into a civil war. It therefore makes sense to search for mirror effects, or indeed cases of contagion, between metropolis and colony. Militant experiences were exchanged across the oceans, and what better way to understand the workings of that dialogue than by scrutinising what the British labour press made of the events in the colonies and, similarly, how the metropolitan turmoil was perceived from the antipodes?

More generally, it is the transnational character of the Great Labour Unrest that needs to be reassessed. In June 1911, the seamen’s strike was an international initiative, uniting the British with their Belgian, Dutch and German comrades. Historians have been able to trace the steps taken “at the top” to make that action possible. But the nature of international industrial action “at the bottom”, in the ports and on the docks, is still largely a terra incognita. Did other professional groups, apart from the seamen, transform the principle of international solidarity into an efficient tool? The ambiguity of “internationalism” should also be stressed. The word did not convey the same message when used by Havelock Wilson or by Tom Mann. The attitudes of trade unionists towards coloured workers in those troubled times were not necessarily dictated by class solidarity and the march towards the Great War only made the case for cross-border fraternity more fragile. The age of empire saw the “nationalisation” of the European working classes and a simultaneous “internationalisation” of labour networks and struggles: can the Great Labour Unrest be said to have followed one tendency more than the other?

The change of scale in space is an obvious invitation to a change of scale in time. Contrary to what is often heard, the 1911-1914 fire did not appear from out of the blue: as early as 1906, the electoral breakthrough of the Labour Representation Committee had already signalled, as well as encouraged, a change in the workers’ political mood. Nor did it die out overnight: in spite of the August-September 1914 social truce, there was a renewed appetite for strike action from 1916 onwards, which culminated in 1919. Using Charles Tilly’s notion of “social movement repertoire”, it would be of the highest interest to identify what forms of action the 1911-1914 strikers borrowed from their predecessors and which of their practices were recycled by the 1926 or even the post-1945 generations. If some transmission took place, we need to spot who was responsible for it.

The representation of the Great Labour Unrest is yet another aspect labour historians need to dig into more deeply. How did its observers (in particular cartoonists and photographers) choose to represent it? How was it commented upon by foreign observers, be they journalists or intellectuals, politicians or activists? Retrospective representations of the events should also be studied, especially in “official histories” of the mainstream labour organisations such as the TUC, the TGWU or the Labour Party. That should not exclude the representations to be found in museums, history textbooks, radio or television documentaries, or even in works of fiction (such as novels or films).

Kindly supported by the Society for the Study of Labour History (SSLH), the conference is organised by the CRIDAF (Centre for Intercultural Research on the Anglophone and Francophone Areas, Paris 13 University) in collaboration with the CREW (Centre for Research on the English-Speaking World, Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3 University). Both research teams belong to the recently created Sorbonne Paris Cité PRES (“Alliance for Higher Education and Research”).

Please send your proposals (300 words), as well as a short bio/bibliography, to all three conveners simultaneously: